tonight, the big chill. extreme weather a country locked in a deep freeze. what's really going on here? and hillary clinton's frosty reception on a hill. >> what difference at this point does it make? >> and nra fires back at president obama on guns. >> there's only two reasons for a federal list on gun owns. tax them or take them. >> and surprising views on guns. >> i know how newtown happened. i'm still really, really wrecked over why. >> and talk about upset. serena williams temper tantrum on the court. a big conversation tonight. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening.

apologies for my ridiculous voice. my critics will be thrilled that i have nearly been silenced but i'm still going on it on a positive note, i always wanted to sound like barry white so i'll try to get through this as best i can. inauguration seems like such a long time ago. tonight the country is arguing over everything from guns to weather to hillary clinton. a battle over benghazi, she gave as good as she got. it was an extraordinary moment. listen to this. >> the fact is we had four dead americans. was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night that decided to go kill americans. what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we

can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. >> an emotional hillary clinton today. my next guest has been calling for secretary clinton's secretary for months. i want to know if she's satisfied by what she heard. senator, you listened to hillary clinton. what was your verdict? >> what i thought is still so many questions that went unanswered and frankly some unsatisfactory answers. i think that i appreciate secretary clinton's service to our country and i think that many senators thanked her. i think tonight the issue really is this. what she said is she was clear eyed about the dangers and threats in eastern libya but then she said that i didn't see any of the security requests which were multiple coming from the consulate. if you are clear eyed about dangers and threats from eastern libya, why weren't you asking the questions about do we need more security? she also said she was aware about the prior attacks on the consulate and attack on the british ambassador. of course the british left so why if you knew about that, why weren't you asking should we leave or should we further secure our consulate?

so there were a number of issues that i was concerned about. in addition she said she was in continuous contact with the libyan government. they had a willingness to protect our people but not a capacity. if you knew there was no capacity, i saw that video from that night. i have to tell you, the libyans that we had charged, we outsourced our security to, they ran as soon as they saw those attackers come to the consulate gate. and so we knew they didn't have that capacity. i think as the person who is in charge, the accountability review board found that there were systemic failures of leadership, that this is a very important issue. >> i've been listening to the republicans getting on their high horse about this for a long time. i thought a lot of today's criticism was political

grandstanding in many ways. if you go back to catastrophic intelligence failures before 9/11 or in the build to the iraq war more serious than this. that's not to diminish the deaths of four americans but those led to the deaths of many, many, many more americans. you got to say get this in perspective. hillary clinton to me seemed to me today to be sincere. i don't think anyone can expect the secretary of state to read every cable that comes in. unless what you're telling me is you believe she definitively lied and deliberately misled the american people. where do we go with this? >> first of all, that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is this. i don't expect her to have read every single document that comes before her. but when she said that she was clear eyed about the dangers and threats in benghazi and eastern libya, the real question is when we address what happened here and going forward, we also better address, you know, how are things communicated up the

chain of command and why when you know your clear eyed about the danger do you not ask have there been additional requests. in fairness, that's the point i'm making. >> i understand that. i understand clearly big mistakes were made here. no question of that. i thought hillary clinton made a good point. the more important thing now is there are 20 more embassies under direct threat at the moment. the more important thing is guaranteeing that lessons are learned and that these embassies are protected and there's no more loss of life and you would agree with that, right? >> i fully agree the whole goal of this is to make sure we get to the bottom of it so it doesn't happen again and also so that we make sure -- one of the things we learned as well is we had someone in custody in tunisia and that person has been release and we want to hold those accountable who committed these horrible murders on our people. >> thank you for joining me.

i want to bring in two people at odds on this. former assistant secretary of state for secretary clinton and host of the radio talk show host of the dana show. let me start with you. i'm getting weary with the relentless attacks first on susan rice and now on hillary clinton. there's a whisper to it and it's getting, i think, washington orientated rather than in the national interest of america. what do you think? >> i think there are legitimate questions that still need to be answered. as hillary clinton said today, the fbi is still working on the investigation. director mueller was in libya and tunisia recently. i get disappointed when people give half of the story. the guy has been released. as hillary clinton said today, yes, but he's under constant surveillance within tunisia and following the rule of law and as more evidence becomes available,

they are prepared to act on him again. i think as hillary clinton said dramatically, our focus here now is to bring these guys to justice but also to understand benghazi in the context of what's happening over the last few days to understand the evolving threat from al qaeda and to deal appropriately with that. >> dana loesch there were phone calls today that they would have been fired. do you agree with that? >> there were a lot of missteps here. we do know that you had said that there was a whisper of questioning susan rice and secretary of state clinton. i don't think asking questions on why talking points were changed, we know for sure the u.s. intelligence report came

out and said extremists that led the attack had al qaeda ties. why was that removed? who removed it? who was in charge of manipulating these talking points. these are questions i wish would have been asked today. >> okay. that's fine. if you're going to take the argument that anyone guilty of misreading intelligence and so on should actually be fired, where would that leave someone like condoleezza rice who was a fine public servant in many ways but made big mistakes in the buildup to the iraq war and many other members of the bush administration. where do you take that line of political argument? should everyone be fired any time intelligence turns out to not be quite right? >> i don't think you can compare what happened during the bush administration with what's happening right now. >> why not? >> we can't use blanket standard of measures. this is the dick durbin argument from earlier today when he was

questioning secretary of state clinton. >> what's the difference? >> the bottom line is, there are questions that need to be asked. they weren't asked. >> you're not suggesting this as serious as going to war over a completely false pretext of weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist. >> goodness, are we going to relitigate this right now? really? how do you explain how millions of citizens in iraq and millions of kurds were gassed if that wasn't a weapons of mass destruction? we can relitigate this six ways to sunday. >> it turned out that american and british forces went to war on false pretext from both their governments. >> are we going to talk about the bush years or what happened in benghazi? do you not think that it's legitimate to ask who manipulated these talking points?

>> i think there are many legitimate questions. i simply think there has to be -- >> let's talk about those. >> it has to be proportionate and republicans have to remember they themselves made some catastrophic errors when it came to intelligence and i don't remember people demanding they get fired or anyone losing their jobs over it. p.j. crowley, do you believe that at any stage either susan rice or hillary clinton has deliberately lied or deliberately misled the american people? >> i think it's a serious charge and a false charge. for americans died in benghazi. we need to understand what happened there. i think it's important to put this in context. after 9/11 we declared war on al qaeda and that conflict is still going on. you have to put what happened in benghazi and what's happening in algeria in the broader struggle context that started in

afghanistan and spread to iraq and is in yemen and pakistan and other places. we tend to understand that when soldiers go to war, they die in service to our country and we're grateful that they do that. once the conflict ends, we're left with fragile states with challenging situations and poor, weak governments and that's the construct that chris stevens willingly walked into because he understood that as we see a libya or egypt or tunisia or yemen move forward, the united states has to be there. while there were mistakes made and underestimations, we can't reduce it to zero. chris stevens understood the situation in benghazi better than anyone else and decided to be there and we should be grateful for his service and his

sacrifice. >> the biggest mistake was putting susan rice on that sunday morning on television with what turned out to be wrong intelligence when they didn't need to go that fast. that's probably as much the media's fault for demanding that they do that kind of thing. i think everyone is culpable here. let's take a break and we'll come back and talk about two more hot button topics, guns in america and women on the front line. this is america. we don't let frequent heartburn

come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

>> our journey is not complete until all our children from the streets of detroit to the quiet lanes of newtown know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm. >> president obama raised the issue of guns in america in his inauguration speech. dana, when we spoke last about guns it got fiery as it has done throughout this debate. the thing i was disappointed in you about was not the specifics of the individual proposals but the fact that you blanket said you wouldn't endorse anything he

said about any type of gun control. now you have time to think about that. was there nothing that the president came out with any of the 23 executive orders or other proposals that you could at least consider? >> well, one of the interesting things about this, piers, is you asked me if i liked any of these. several of these 23 executive actions that the president had actually proposed are actions that democrats have actively ridiculed for four years. including nra. >> why would you not like background checks? >> who said i didn't like background checks? >> hold on. i asked you last time is there anything in this that you liked. and then you said there was nothing. now you said you may like background checks. did you mislead me last time? >> wait a minute. wait a minute. let me tell you what i think instead of you putting words into my mouth. the executive actions, these

executive actions that the president listed, these 23 actions, aren't going to do anything to curb violence. the thing that struck me as being most ironic is two of these -- >> it's nonsense. >> it's not. i would love for you to prove -- >> you don't think having background checks of gun sales -- >> i didn't say anything about background checks. you're the one that keeps bringing up background checks. do you realize they wouldn't have done anything for sandy hook. they wouldn't have done anything for virginia tech. it's not because the law failed. it's because people who are supposed to follow the law failed. i put this question for you again. what good are laws if people don't follow them? >> right. so you still maintain that we have to put more and more guns out there and america will be safer? >> i don't maintain anything. you can put words into my mouth all you want to. >> do you believe that? >> let me tell you something. >> do you believe more guns

would lead to less gun crime? >> let me answer you. i am never, ever going to do anything that is going to somehow limit someone's ability to protect themselves. and speaking as someone who has had to deal with this, let me tell you something. i've been in the situation where i've had to protect myself. i have two children. i've had my life threatened. i've had my children's lives threatened. i went to the police. i went to security. do you know what -- you know what they told me? they said the best thing you can do is to get a firearm and to get a conceal carry license. that's what law enforcement told me. i don't want to remove that right from anyone else. >> that's not what we're debating. here's the interesting thing about this debate. it always gets reframed by gun rights lobby as an attack on second amendment and constitution. no one will tolerate any kind of talk that removes any guns whatsoever and last time i spoke to dana we were talking about the ar-15, military assault rifle. here's a clip of what this

weapon actually does. we found one firing 15 bullets in six seconds. watch this. now, you can modify them to fire up to 100 in one minute and my point that i keep putting to everyone that doesn't want any sort of control on guns is what would a civilian need a weapon like that for? p.j., have you heard any convincing argument as to why that kind of weapon should remain in civilian hands? >> well, no. however, i would suggest we have to turn the issue around. if guns is an impossible frame with which to make political progress, let's change that frame slightly. you go back to newtown and you had very significant weapons. military style weapons in the hands of an angry young man who

had obviously some kind of mental disorder. we have to make a commitment that the answer can't be we can't do anything but then we have to come together and have a sensible conversation not unlike the country had in the aftermath of 9/11 through an inspired bipartisan commission of some kind, okay, what can we do that makes sense? if we get to a point that we make sure that some guns are prevented from getting in the hands of angry, young men with mental disorders, that in fact will be progress and that could potentially prevent something like what happened in newtown or columbine or movie theater in aurora. the real issue is what can we do and we need sensible people to come together and have a conversation rather than saying, no, no, no, nothing will change. >> just turning to the women in combat debate today. leon panetta ending the

exclusion order against women operating in combat in the american military. what did you make of that, p.j.? >> as you look at war, you know, there's no difference anymore in the current way that wars are fought between the front lines and the rear guard. women have been in combat. they were in combat in iraq because the battlefield had changed so dramatically. i think this is a ratification of the way that the modern military goes to war. we should never put anyone in harm's way who is not able to cope with those difficult and challenging circumstances. by the same token we've had circumstances where women have been in combat but in aftermath are not given the same recognition or have the same potential for advancement because what they did was not called combat. so i think this removes a false barrier and just says that for the modern military whoever can do these kind of jobs and wants to step forward, thank you for

your service and go ahead. >> i agree. you've been vocal on twitter today about this. here's my surprise. you want to be armed to the teeth as a civilian marching around with your ar-15s but you don't want to see female soldiers in the line of combat. there's a contradiction there. >> i would say the contradiction exists with you. you are fine with women defending their families on the front line but apparently not at home either. >> hang on. dana, dana, dana, you can't keep repeating a lie. i have never, ever -- >> it's not a lie. i just pointed out a fact. >> i have never, ever, ever said -- dana, dana -- >> i'll change my tone on that. >> my point -- let me just correct one thing before you answer.

i have never, ever said that an american cannot have a firearm at home to defend themselves and their family. i don't believe they shouldn't be able to. >> you are against semiautomatics. that's why i point that out. i don't know what a military style is. back to the question that you asked me. this is how i look at it. i'm a little bit -- full confession. so long as this decision is being made with the goal of strengthening the military and not based on any sort of politically correct motivations. that's what i'm wondering with this. i know that the order that panetta gave is unclear. "the wall street journal" just came out with a story earlier this evening saying that women may not be able to be part of infantry but we know women already serve in combat operations as mr. crowley said. we've had women killed in action in iraq. so as i said, i think there are some women who definitely are capable of doing this. i have those amazing women in my family.

i've known women who are brawlers and can hold their own and i know men that can't. it seems to be the more exception rather than the rule. so long as we're doing this with the goal of strengthening the military and i'm always going to deflect to the military leaders who deal with this every day to make these decisions. >> got to leave it there. as always the generals and commanders on the ground should make the final decision. i think it's another step forward for equality. that's what the president said inauguration day. he wants general equality in all areas of this country and i applaud that. thank you both for joining me. i'm sure we'll discuss this again soon. another topic dividing the country today. extreme weather. what's going on as the whole country is engulfed in snow, ice and traffic hell. ower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so...

well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. ♪ [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

>> here we go. >> that's not a magic trick. it's nasty winter season. hot water tossed into the air turning instantly into snow. a frozen banana doubled up as a hammer here. this is what happens when a wet t-shirt hits the frigid air. >> makes a sound like a drum. >> remarkable picture part of the deep freeze hitting across america. joining me is a chief meteorologist.

you're in times square in new york. during your time as a meteorologist, have you a sense that we are going through a genuine climatic change in the weather? >> you can't attribute one particular event to climate change. there's no way to deny things have been supercharged. floods, hurricane sandy, droughts, extreme chill. whether it's a cyclical thing where we'll turn this around or we're on a one-way path remains to be seen. >> we've seen extreme heat and cold and hurricanes sweeping through new york, which i experienced. it was dramatic when it happened. it caused a lot of damage. the critics against this say, look, this has gone on for centuries and millenniums. always freakish periods of weather. no different now. what do you say to that?

>> i think you are better off looking -- >> i think lee goldberg may have frozen there it was so cold. i think he's iced up. you can't hear him. you can barely hear me. we got lee back. we thought you had frozen to death. no. you are frozen to death. unfortunately we have lost lee goldberg. sorry about that. president obama is making the fight against extreme weather part of his second term agenda. joining me now is editor and chief and an executive director of the sierra club. welcome to you both. when i last spoke to you about this, pretty fiery debate about it and you were opposed to any suggestion that there's any real science to confirm global warming or genuine climate change. rather than me get involved with

this, i'll rest my weary voice box and let michael tell you why there is science. over to you. >> the science is settled. we noticed that last year we had record numbers of wildfires. 61% of the country suffered a crippling drought. we had superstorm sandy with 1,000-mile diameter storm hitting the east coast causing billions of dollars in damage. the climate has begun to be destabilized. we can do something about it. we have solutions to the cause of climate change and those solutions will both help keep our families safe and help our economy grow at the same time. >> okay. there you have it. what do you say to that? >> i say you look at the literature. we know a study in journal of nature show 60 years no trend in droughts and there was a decline

in the u.s. except for the most recent one in 2012 which wasn't even as big as one in the 1950s or 1930s. in terms of flood, 80 to 117 years, no trend in floods. hurricanes, eight years now with the longest period without a major landfalling category 3 or larger hurricane in that eight years since 1900 we've gone that long. if you start looking at these measures -- >> answer me this point. you wouldn't dispute there's been increased acceleration in c02, right? >> james hanson from nasa indicated flat lining temperatures. the movements have shifted to extreme storms. that's the focus. evidence is everywhere when you

look at extremes. bottom line is we always had extreme weather. in the 1970s, the cia report and "newsweek" and people worried about coming ice age blamed extreme weather. droughts and bad weather and crop failure on global cooling. now they reversed and they blame the same phenomenon on global heating. >> i haven't met mark. i'm sure he's a nice guy. he's not a climate scientist. he runs a website financed by chevron. >> we don't have anything near the money the big green environmentalists have. >> why don't i make my point. the science is in. climate scientists around the world agree in overwhelming numbers that climate change is real. it's here and happening and extreme weather is the new normal. what is also true is that the united states has begun to fight this. our c02 levels reached new lows.

as we get off dirty fuels, as we reject dirty pipelines, as we replace dirty coal plants with clean energy, we create more jobs, we support the local tax base, we grow the economy, we clean up our air and our water and stabilize the climate. the only folks against that are oil companies, gas companies and coal companies that routinely fund climate deniers that you have on your show here tonight. >> i have to leave it there. my view remains why take the risk. i want my kids and their kids to live in a healthy planet. >> and c02 is -- >> if you have the stuff to do it now, you might as well do it. lee goldberg is alive. he's not perished in the freezing cold. you're downstairs. lee, what's the forecast for the next few days?

>> just like i just thawed out, so will the midwest into the northeast. another rough few days coming. last 36 hours windchills haven't gone above 5 degrees in new york city. we'll climb out of this after the weekend. another four rough days ago. >> i hear you are wearing a battery packed heated jacket? >> two battery packs in here. on warmest setting. i'm radiating. >> i noticed that your fingers have been covered up. did abc find a new more dollars to finish off the gloves? >> they are special. >> okay. pleasure talking to you. glad you're alive. coming next, dwight yoakam coming up and passion of serena williams may have gotten the best of her but i liked it.

selling 25 million records, dwight yoakam is talented. you're a singer. you must have had sore throats over the year. >> don't ever take a flu shot again. i watched that night with dr. oz. he seems like a completely competent doctor.

i don't understand any of the biological aspects of the meds. >> we're doing the math. we saw him put that thing in my arm. within ten days i've been struck down. >> i don't want to tell anybody out there. i'm not a medical adviser. get your vaccines. i don't believe in them. i'm suspicious by nature. i saw you get it. here we are. >> we'll try to plow through the interview. you want to talk to me about guns. you have been following this debate and following the shows we've done. you're a man from kentucky. you're a big country star. a lot of your fans, a lot of people that you grew up around would have had guns as an automatic thing in their lives. what's your view about the debate? >> guns are very serious instruments of survival and

defense. but they are weapons. they are dangerous weapons and you got to be very cautious with them, around them, about them. i own guns. i'm not a member of the nra. look, the newtown tragedy was an anomalous horror. i know how newtown happened. i'm still really, really wrecked over why. >> when you say it's an anomaly. it wasn't really in a sense that last four or five mass shootings in america in the last 18 months involved a similar pattern of unstable, young white men -- >> in the scope of history. in the century of the 50 years, 40 years. >> the point i'm making is there's an escalation in this particular type of deranged, young, white men in their early 20s getting access to assault

rifles and committing mass murder. that's become not the norm but certainly the last five mass shootings you have seen that particular type of weapon used. i keep asking people, maybe you can give me a more sensible answer -- >> virginia tech i don't remember. i thought he had handguns. >> i'm talking in the last year. seven mass shootings in america in the last year. aurora the guy used an ar-15. sandy hook, ar-15. new york firemen lured to their deaths. >> congressman giffords was handguns. >> that's equally important. i just don't understand why anybody needs an ar-15 military style weapon. can you give me an answer? >> i don't know if i'll give you an answer that will satisfy your sense of sane logic. i think it's born out of the dna that is the foundation of, you

know, those colonies that broke free and that were having troops marshalled in their homes. it wasn't about hunting. it was about being able to defend yourself against tyranny. i don't know that i want the government -- i don't trust the government. i'm a kid of the '60s. >> i tried to immerse myself into all of the arguments without taking a sort of lofty, patronizing view of it. many americans share that view. i don't understand why there's a fear of tyranny given no overseas tyranny could compete with the american military. you are left with domestic tyranny. if your own government becomes radical, they have 5,000 nuclear warheads.

how do you possibly defend yourselves? >> yes. >> as many u.s. marines have tweeted me, nor can i see a situation where the american armed forces would go against their own people. >> that's egypt when you watched the egyptian military turn that revolution by saying we won't gun down egyptians in the street. you hope that's the case. i'm saying that it's a different interpretation of second amendment. >> how much do you think lyrics perhaps in music that allude to guns, you have written a song that includes a line of placing a gun to her head and now she's dead. >> not because of the dress. he had good reason. >> to murder his wife with a gun. >> i'm not going to morph into robert blake on you.

>> when you take those lyrics or this clip of you from the movie "panic room." >> that's not fair. that's an unfortunate clip. the character was really not all that bad. at that point he was pushed. >> here's my question. do you think that -- obviously some rap star lyrics are far more violent. do you believe that any musician or movie star or movie maker or music producer, do they have any responsibility in terms of rhetoric about guns or the portrayal of them in movies?

>> it's an extension of -- >> there's an old bluegrass song called "knoxville girl." it was a great tradition of murder and mayhem and some of those. it was handed down into appalachian culture here and bluegrass music here. that's poetic license. there was no real person. that wasn't a chronicling. >> i'm not going to hold you responsible for gun violence in america. >> i won't yell what robert yelled that night. are you out of your -- >> let's turn to peaceful matters. it's a peaceful cover. very clean. very simple. these aren't exploding grenades, right? >> as far as i know, it's a completely nonviolent piece of product there. although i will let you know that the title was a misprint

and they are correcting it. >> to three piers. good luck. >> you played into my hand. >> great to see you. we'll be right back. so...how'd it go? well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work. you know who you are.

you can part a crowd, without saying a word... if you have yet to master the quiet sneeze... you stash tissues like a squirrel stashes nuts... well muddlers, muddle no more. try zyrtec®. it gives you powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because zyrtec® starts working at hour one on the first day you take it. claritin® doesn't start working until hour three. zyrtec®. love the air.

>> announcer: with over 200 pages in h

911 emergency. >> school? >> yes, shots were fired by room 41 on campus. >> do you know where the person with the gun is? >> no. >> who's the victim? is there a victim? i'm on the phone with dispatch. >> the chilling 911 call from the 2000 death of 15-year-old lawrence king killed in middle school by a classmate. the tragedy that followed is another subject. joining me tonight. welcome to you both. >> thank you. >> it's a very powerful movie. it's obviously even more powerful, knowing it's a true story. it raises issues. a young school boy murders another one in a classroom with a gun. the issue of gun safety is school is one. secondly, the motivation for the murder, prompted by what the gunman took to be a sexual advance, an offer on a

valentine's day by another young student that had shamed him in some way. what was most striking for me from the movie is you get this extraordinary series of interviews with jurors where they almost support the shooter because they understand that he was, to quote one of them, getting rid a problem. tell me about that. >> well, thank you. it was an extraordinary circumstance to have jurors speak out on behalf of brandon. i don't remember seeing anything like that in a documentary before. i think the jurors were really taken with brandon. they felt very empathetic towards brandon. and they wanted to give him voice. >> i'm seen many documentaries but to actually see jurors go as far as to be blatantly supportive of a pretty cold-blooded ruthless murderer in the end, notwithstanding his young age, i found very shocking.

what did you feel about it? >> i felt getting that footage was very revealing. i think in a documentary you're really trying to show all sides and show people's viewpoints as they would choose to express them. i think we felt that was an important part of the story. and of the case, clearly, because you saw the outcome, that it was a mistrial. they could not arrive at a decision. >> the -- >> that was the defense. i mean, the defense put that forth. and they believed the defense. >> yeah, quite extraordinary. eddie, a bizarre twist in this tale was you lived in utah. your sister attended sandy hook elementary school. how do you feel, having made this documentary, to then see what happened in sandy hook? what were your emotions then? >> well, i mean, clearly, i was incredibly shocked and saddened. my heart broke for the people of newtown.

and it was very strange to have been working on this film for over three years. i was working on it for other three years. marta, over four. and suddenly see on the news a school shooting happening in my hometown. and i guess what it made me feel is that if i'm making a film about a school shooting in california and i'm personally connected to a school shooting that's happening across the country in connecticut, then school shootings are far too pervasive. this should not be happening. if it's so ubiquitous that i have two connections to those kinds of stories. >> and marta, what do you feel, having made the documentary, about the issue of guns in schools generally? many of the gun rights lobbyists -- answer to sandy hook is to arm teachers perhaps, armed janitors, armed police or security guards everywhere. what to you think about that equation? more guns would lead to more

safety at schools? >> well, i have to say first off that i'm a filmmaker. i'm not a lawmaker. so we made this film to give voice to the people who are involved with this shooting. and that was really all we wanted to do. >> well, it's a very powerful film. i hope you'll go and see it. it raises a lot of issues. >> thank you. >> i congratulate you for raising those issues in such a dramatic way. the hbo documentary "valentine road" currently airing at the sundance film festival. and we'll be right back. but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

my friend is making news tonight. he lost in the quarterfinals at the australian open in a match that brought out all her intensity. >> well, i recognize all that because of course last year we clashed ourselveses in a match of equal drama and tension in new york and she didn't take that defeat well. >> oh, come on! >> not a happy bunny then. take it from me, we don't want you any other way. keep showing that hunger, that desire, that passion to be the best.